SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
The English batting was like trying to swat away sandflies.
It is the players they have that are good. They can't really do much about that. Having said that Broad should obviously have played in this one.I might be ignorant but don't England play too many multi role players (all rounders and wicketkeeper batsmen)?
Yeah, they got the bowling wrong. Two spinners was always going to be silly when the host team pick four quicks. And no way is Curran a test-match opening bowler. But none of that justifies the batting of course. Happy to believe that WI bowled well, but that should be the norm in test matches. Most sides manage not to be bowled out for less than 100.Selection clearly all wrong as well, it is easily to get in a muddle with the set of players England have to pick from but they obviously got it wrong this time.
Still the 3-0 in Sri Lanka means there is some credit in the bank. The West Indies bowling was terrific is as well, only Moeen played a really awful shot.
Can't see the rest of this series being like that one given the nature of the two sides, should be a good one actually.Yeah, they got the bowling wrong. Two spinners was always going to be silly when the host team pick four quicks. And no way is Curran a test-match opening bowler. But none of that justifies the batting of course. Happy to believe that WI bowled well, but that should be the norm in test matches. Most sides manage not to be bowled out for less than 100.
Reminds me of 2009 when we were bowled out for 50 in the first test and that was the end of any interesting cricket in the series.
Guyana wore down that Barbadian team in the first innings.That bowling from windies was top class, and Guyana hammered much of this team 2 weeks ago on their own on this ground